Love my job, since I've been bringing in $82h… I sit at home, music playing while I work in front of my new iMac that I got now that I'm making it online. (Home more information)http://goo.gl/AU6aRFReply

it's the same as every other 30 inch IPS monitor out there, and most if not all 27s as well. As you can plainly see in the graph. People buying these monitors care about image quality and color accuracy, they don't care about shooter motion clarity.Reply

The fact that you're 'not experiencing issues' doesn't mean that you're experiencing ideal motion clarity. You're not obliged to seek out monitors that have the best motion clarity for shooters, but if that's the road you choose to go down please think twice before claiming that you 'care' about motion clarityReply

uhm how can I break this down for you Photography and Filmography are used professionally on these monitors so MS plays a huge roll in ghosting during the film, so yes it does matter considerably, and this day in age people hybrid their workstations so they can game and do pro work on them, hence Nvidia released the Titan to fill that market, 1k for a hybrid workstation/gaming card is amazing.Reply

To rephrase what Sancus said, there are two types of customers for >27", >1440p monitors: those who need high refresh rates and those who need high color accuracy. The intended market for the VUE 30 is the high color accuracy market.Reply

The now discontinued LG W3000H had low input lag due to the lack of OSD and only one input (DVI-DL). It also has a wide gamut and mine has an uncalibrated white point of around 9000K (due to extra green instead of blue). Odd how no one seems to care about input lag on 16:10 displays anymore. Only 16:9 for gaming I guess. :(Reply

I used a dell u3011 for quite a while, which I believe has similar input lag, and I never noticed a thing in gaming. I think its just another tiny lag, keep in mind it isn't even two frames at 60 fps, and if you're running at 30 fps its not even a single frame of lag, so I doubt most people would notice it in gaming. Reply

Was that a reply to me? If so then what you state is incorrect, or you otherwise are referring to input lag in a different form to me. What matters is TOTAL monitor latency (a product of 'input lag' as well as pixel response time and processing time). Total latency on most IPSs is not appropriate for fast motion shooters, even though there are a select few IPSs that have low input lag, or have high refresh rates. In any case, this Nixeus is not one of these select few and is appropriate for graphics/photo design work rather than gaming.Reply

Uhm spoken by someone that clearly can't afford one or never used one. Only read about them I guess. Ive been gaming on a HP ZR30 for 3 years now very happy with the clarity and shooting motion but thanks nice try. Reply

Same range as on every top-end "professional-use" wide-gamut panel. My U2410s have similar, and my 2408 is far worse at 64ms overall. All of those are eminently good for gaming. If anything, I prefer them over any fast TN because of the nicer colours. Really helps immersion :D. Sucks a bit for online p,lay though, but until eDP-based panels become a major thing, we'll still have input lag from scalers and whatnot, and in any case, you can't go below the panel response.Reply

Glad to hear you're so insensitive to input lag. However, what you experience is by no means the cream of the crop. One can maintain the pleasant colours of IPS and still have good motion clarity by getting one of the overclockable 27-inch 1440p screens. Their input lag is much less, and further mitigated by the (approx.) 120Hz refresh rate. Orders of magnitude better for FPS gaming than what a 30-inch IPS screen can deliverReply

The 2408 was infamously bad. Unlike previous laggy Dell panels that only bothered some gamers the 2408 was slow enough that it annoyed a lot of people who were just working at the desktop. While continuing to insist nothing was wrong and it was working as designed; Dell/etc pulled back (and eventually started listing it on their spec sheets) and the display industry generally insisted on nothing slower than ~2 frames (32ms) which are good enough that no one other than some action gamers complain. I occasionally notice what might be the 30ms on my NEC 3090 when playing POE (an aRPG); but it's intermittent enough I'm not sure if it's actually panel lag or just me hitting the limits of my reaction time.Reply

RPS or bit-tech (can't remember which) tested that when the Titan came out. They only achieved ~72Hz before the panel itself just started dropping frames because it couldn't keep up.

Besides, as I said up there, image processing and DP->LVDS conversion takes time. constant time, but time nonetheless. If you had a TN panel at 2560x1600@60Hz, you'd see at least 12ms of processing lag + some more for the panel itself. If you can rip out the on-board processing entirely, you're reducing the lag quite a a bit, which is exactly what game modes do: pipe the signal straight to LVDS conversion with no post-processing. On the U2410, that drops the latency from ~30ms to ~14ms.

In any case, you missed the point of my comment, where I mentioned it being in the same range as most other wide-gamut, professional-use panels and perfectly fine for single-player gaming, where you can learn to compensate for it. Hell, my LoL-playing friends used to pull off skillshots by timing it just right with a a 300ms ping time to US servers. If you think 30ms is bad...Reply

I would like to see this "RPS or bit-tech" review if you can find it. There are plenty of 2560x1440 monitors out there that overclock SLIGHTLY, but VERY few that support refresh rates up to approx. 120Hz. Unless the reviewers looked at one of the latter monitors (which would surprise me) then I'm not surprised that they started seeing dropped frames.Reply

> Note also that lag might be lower running at the native 2560x1600, but I can't directly compare that with most other displays as they lack support for that resolution.

Please don't do that. People who buy/want these big, 30" 16:10 panels are paying the hefty premium for the full resolution, not to run something lower through the scaler. As such, I (and others, probably) would appreciate native resolution response times rather than scaled. 2560x1600 is uncommon because of the hefty price (1.5k per screen so far!), not because wqe don't want 2560x1600.Reply

I believe Chris is using a Leo Bodnar device now (http://bit.ly/WXV7Vv), where formerly he used a CRT as a reference display sending the same content to both. To do native 2560x1600 lag tests, you'd need a device (CRT or Leo Bodnar or similar) that supports WQXGA...which doesn't exist. Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, though.Reply

Apparently that device can't do > 1080p. Unfortunately this means using the scaler, which I think is a really bad idea. Resizing a 4 MP image can easily take an entire frame worth of latency. Its entirely possible that the actual input lag at native resolution is much lower. Reply

The Blur Busters Input Lag Tester, supports 4K, 120Hz, WQXGA and any other resolutions. It will be released before the end of the year. There is also a second input lag tester (SMTT style) that I have invented as well, which is undergoing tests. Keep tuned at the Blur Busters website.Reply

I probably need to have a Cut-and-Paste note for the lag section at this point. I was using SMTT which worked reasonably well, but no longer is selling licenses and mine has long expired now. Mirroring a counter can have issues, but the main one is there isn't a CRT I can reasonably buy that does beyond 1920x1200 (since I'm moving into the world of Barco and Sony 9" CRT projectors that cost a ton and take up far too much room) so then I have to scale the video input anyway. All the lag testers, like the Leo Bodnar, are designed around TVs so they cap at 1080p for output right now.

Hopefully with 4K TVs coming out there will be someone that makes a lag tester that uses HDMI 1.4a and can run at multiple resolutions, but it doesn't exist yet. All other lag measurement methods use oscilloscopes and custom software, which is beyond what I can manage at the moment. The Leo Bodnar is far from ideal for this, but it's the best of a bad situation. For monitors that allow direct 1:1 input, I always measure that mode and not a scaled mode. Often I find the differences are only 1-2ms, though, so the scaler really isn't adding that much of an impact.Reply

That aside, scopes aren't too expensive.. I mean, a bunch of my friends (Uni students) bought a bunch of Rigol scopes (around 300AUD each) just so they didn't have to trek down to uni for working on their projects. Sure, you can get really expensive ones well into the thousands range, but last I checked a few weeks ago from reading TFTCentral's reviews, a USB scope is in the €300 range, which IMO isn't bad at all considering the sheer datalogging you can do from a computer vs an independent scope...Reply

The fit and finish and look of this is so ultra-cheap. A bit of decent quality matte plastic and a stand that isn't terrible wouldn't break the bank, but it would make this look worth the money they're charging.Reply

Funny thing is this has the same OSD as my DGM (Digimate) 27" 1440p monitor. Really nice quality, but I have heard bad things about the power supplies going bang, but I have had mine for 4 months so hopefully I will be good and have a decent batch.Reply

Crazy timing, I just ordered a 27" 2560x1440 Korean made display last night. It was a hair over $300 at Amazon (shortened URL: http://goo.gl/zU4E3x ) and I was shocked that it was so cheap. It is no frills, with Dual Link DVI as the only interface but that is my preferred interface anyway. :-)

As for size:30" 2560x1600 = 404.49 square inches (25.4″x15.9″)27" 2560x1440 = 311.5 square inches (23.5″x13.2″)So for $300 for a 27" model you get 77% of the display area of the $700 30" model... not bad!(Source: Pixensity.com Desktop LCD List)

After reading this review I am glad that I did not get a 30" Korean model as it looks like there is still some improvements to be made and that price is still very high. I agree with the article and other commenters that a Dell 30" (or similar) may still be preferred and I am looking forward to comparing the new 27" display to my old standby the Dell 3007WFP (from way back in 2005!)Reply

Good luck. Those inexpensive Korean knock-offs have a high rate of QC issues, from dust/dirt inside the display to plenty of dead pixels and uneven LCD mounting inside the bezel. I just dropped $699 on an LG 27EA83-D at Fry's and am seriously thinking of returning it and getting a 30" Dell U3014 direct from Dell for $999 on sale all month with a coupon code. The LG is great but not as big a leap from my 24" 1920x1200 Samsung as expected, even with the higher resolution. Reply

What about the overclockable 27-inch IPS screens, Chris? They can be sourced locally (from US) these days so no need to acquire one from Korea anymore. God knows there's been enough obsession about them during the past 12-18 months...and yet we still don't have truly professional reviews of themReply

Can we please stop the silly trend of referring to all displays as [vertical resolution] & "p"? The resolutions and aspect ratios of computer displays are not governed by the ATSC or DVB, and none of these panels are intended to be driven in an interlaced mode. At best the "p" just sits there conveying no useful information, at worst it causes the writer to omit actually useful information.

[horizontal resolution] & "x" & [vertical resolution] is better, and likely preferable to the rather forgettable initialisms such as "WQXGA". If you are talking about a display with an ATSC or DVB defined resolution and want to use the "p" nomenclature, at least include the maximum refresh rate, since this will definitely be a concern with the initial wave of UHDTV panels.Reply

You're right of course, but typing 1440p is a lot quicker than 2560X1440. Not to mention the fact that pretty much everyone knows (or should know) what 1080p/1440p/1600p is shorthand for in the context of computer monitors.Reply

The p is totally hopeless information. Pointless trend. Even worse, when people have described 1920x1200 tablets as "1080p" or "Full HD". I don't want a 1920x1080 screen necessarily, but a 1920x1200 one is a more compelling ratio.Reply

Alluding to the new Nexus 7 there? I had a chuckle when I saw Google use both terms on the official Play store page, right alongside the 1920x1200 listed res. It's like the average consumer can't even be counted on to remember more than one number anymore or even assume larger = better (probably why 4K has emerged as a label, anything more technically accurate would just go in one ear and out the other).Reply

4k emerged as a term years ago in high end professional video circles because all but one of the resolutions used were 4096 pixels across; the aspect ratio was varied solely by changing the vertical resolution. From there it just trickled down; we geeks read about it on gadget blogs/etc and lusted after stuff that would support it while costing less than our homes and gradually popularized it as the next big thing. Meanwhile, and unsurprisingly the TV people settled on the slightly smaller quadHD standard since it has less implementation/back compatability issues.Reply

Since this is an IPS panel, it probably goes without saying that its refresh rate is just 60Hz. The response time of 7ms is borderline if you're a gamer. What's most disappointing to me is that it has CCFL backlighting, making the display heavier, hotter, thicker, and less power efficient. Most current LCD's use the newer LED backlighting, so this is the LCD equivalent of paying luxury price for a car that's carburetered. I'll hold out for when OLED's take hold and become affordable. Thank you. Reply

Except for the most expensive sort, LED backlighting cannot match a *good* CCFL for color gamut. While the lack of an sRGB mode limits the VUE 30 somewhat their backlight choice indicates they're going for the pro market where color accuracy is more important than the equivalent of an hours pay/year in extra power use or an increase in thickness that no one but a silly fanboi would care about.Reply

Been hearing the same thing about OLED for years now... At this point I don't have any hope for it outside of small scale specialized usage cases (phones, electronic viewfinders on cameras, media players, mayyybe tablets).Reply

Don't hold your breath. That'd be ~125DPI; high enough that at anything beyond hunched over your laptop viewing distance windows controls are going to be squinty at native resolution; but not high enough to use a linear scaling mode. What you should be lusting after in that size bracket is a quadHD panel: ~180 DPI for software that supports it and relatively clean 2:1 scaling at 90dpi when it doesn't.Reply

I think the review gave correct advice about this monitor: it is a cheap and valid alternative for those that want adobe RGB coverage. For gaming it is just about as bad as many other 30" and certainly not better for gaming than a 27" 2560x1440 LED panel. For productivity i believe the price is a bit off, since you are better served by a 39" 4k Seiki TV for the same price, with better colors at sRGB. These are the last remnants of a dieing breed of CCFL monitors. Reply

I've been gaming on a 30" HP LP3065 for something like six or seven years. I love it, and sadly I think the introduction of scalers to 30" displays simply made them more laggy. I'll be sad when I eventually have to replace this display!Reply

Wait till the eDP panels show up. Then everyone and their dog will be doing bypasses to skip the electronics entirely and pipe DP signals straight into the eDP panel. For reference, people have done that to use iPad retina displays or test the newest batch of 13.3" IPS displays :DReply

it's time to end this farce and stop posting input lag numbers that are not at native resolution. I've bought two monitors in the last 8 months (a 23" eIPS Asus and a 27" Qnix QX2710 from Korea) and got NO help from these Anandtech reviews, due to the ridiculous notion that input lag at 1080p is somehow comparable to what it would be with no scaling. Either don't put the number up there, or do the tests at native res.Reply

Unless the scaler totally deactivates and thus doesn't contribute to lag, running native won't be any less laggy. For most displays, the presence of a scaler is an all or nothing thing. The old Dell 3008WFP had much worse lag than the 3007WFP because it had multiple inputs and a scaler. Unless something has changed, I wouldn't expect native resolution to be less laggy.

As I noted above, however, the problem is in testing for input lag at native. We used to compare to a CRT, which meant we were limited to CRT resolutions. Now Chris is using the Leo Bodnar lag tester...which has a max resolution support of 1080p. Until someone makes one capable of testing native 4K and WQXGA, Chris doesn't have a way to test input lag at native on these displays.Reply

Adding to what Jared said, testing on displays that offer both 1:1 mode and a scaling stretch mode, I typically see only 1-2ms of delay difference between them.Most monitors are using cheap, fast scalers that doesn't add that much lag. Things like color management and other features, which you'll see in more displays now, add far more lag because that is more intensive work to do.

Believe me, if someone makes a lag tester that does more than 1080p I'm buying it. Otherwise buying a scope for a single measurement is just cost prohibitive.Reply

Seems inevitable that the 2560x1600 will remain mostly niche with 2560x1440 becoming the go-to resolution in the post-4K world that we'll be soon living in. Monitor makers will be selling these 1440p displays hand over fist when people become convinced they want a high resolution display but find the pricetag on 4K to be out of this world and they come back down to Earth, still wanting a higher resolution display than 720p/768p/1080p.

I doubt they'll make 1600p the go-to resolution, so they'll split the difference and go with 1440p to maximize profits (the exact reason they went to 1080p instead of 1200p).Reply

Frankly, I think about sRGB the same way I think about TN and 16:9 - they are low-quality standards that I would like to see fade away from mainstream monitors. While I agree that any monitor aimed at said mainstream should be sRGB capable, I can't help but think it is really time for the standard to be raised. It is possible to give us full AdobeRGB without breaking the bank - as is proven here.

This isn't an LCD thing, of course, sRGB pervades the industry all along the path of software and hardware. But, not many people are demanding higher quality color reproduction, so when is it going to change, if ever?

Well, I'll say it - sRGB is a low-quality standard, and it is time we moved on.Reply

You're right, but of course 99% of laptops can't even do sRGB let alone AdobeRGB or NTSC, and laptops are now outselling desktops. I've been using a high gamut HP LP3065 for years, though, and while I notice the oversaturation at times, when I'm working with many imaging programs (Photoshop, even most browsers now, and MS Photo Viewer) appear to recognize AdobeRGB properly.Reply

I hope some day we'll simply have color management on all OSes (namely Windows and Android), and not just OSX. I'm living with a calibrated and profiled extended gamut 1600p monitor in Windows 7, and it's tough. Windows 7 doesn't assume/remap its shell to sRGB, or any other apps. Only certain software like Adobe's, and a few others with effort (Irfanview, Firefox, Media Player Classic Home Cinema) are "color aware". Google Chrome remaps correctly when viewing JPEGs with colorspace tags, but everything else in that browser is oversaturated. (It doesn't assume sRGB from untagged images and web colors.)

I think a future of ubiquitous color management will have to happen in a world of ubiquitous OLED displays. That's a future that continuously seems over the horizon.Reply

There are preferences in FF that sets default colourspace to sRGB (I used it on and off, depending on my mood), so only correctly tagged pictures are rendered with wide gamut.

For the windows shell, it doesn't matter, and lastly, for the programs, well, Windows' integrated picture viewer is colour aware, as I was surprised to discover. Its all there where it should be. You don't really care what your UI elements look like, but pictures and video you do care.Reply

It is great to see prices drop this much, but the standard 30" screen still has a serious problem, in my eyes. .25mm dot pitch.

Okay that isn't terrible; it's something I could live with. But the fact is, I can buy a 27" with much better dot pitch (.233mm) and spend a lot less money. I hate the 16:9, but it isn't as bad as .25mm for me in that large of a display, personally, so the trade-off means I'll go with spending less money to get something a bit closer to what I want.

Give me 16:10.

Give me at least (most?) .233mm dot pitch, - better certainly isn't an unreasonable thing to ask in this day and age.

Give me accurate colors, a uniform display, screen surface that isn't too reflective OR to heavily anti-reflective, a thin bezel so I can put 3 of them side-by-side without big spaces between the displays..

Give me low lag.

Sell it to me for less than $600. Really, I think $500 isn't unreasonable, but I'll buy it at $600.Reply

Windows still doesn't handle odd DPI all that well, though 8.1 may improve this. As someone who has used 30" LCDs for years now, I will tell you that I have no issues with the dot pitch, and in fact I often have to increase the magnification to read text comfortably. I think a dot pitch for desktop displays of around 0.28-0.30mm is actually better for most people past 30 years old. For businesses with 40+ year old employees, I have had many instances where I had to set their 1080p or 1920x1200 display to run at a lower resolution because the user complained that the text was too small.

So, sorry to burst your bubble, but in the larger market of the world (e.g. people older than 25) having higher DPI is not actually all that important or even desirable. Not to mention, if you had a 4K 25" display, you need GPUs capable of driving that resolution at a reasonable level of performance. Just like the business world doesn't worry too much about high DPI displays, they're not interested in high performance GPUs for general computer use either.Reply

Right on with the dot pitch comment. I recently got to work on a 27" 1440p display and felt I had to set the Windows 7 UI & font scaling to 125% rather than 100% (I'm 29). The side-effect was that 125% looked kind of "Mac like" with high res fonts still the same size, whereas 100% was like trying to work at a scale designed for ultraportable laptops.Reply

I call BS. My eyesight is TERRIBLE. I can't see the broadside of a barn if it was flying at me and mooing. But I have these wonderful things called glasses. It's not like glasses stop working when you get older. I currently am sitting about 24 inches from my 125 ppi laptop screen and I can still tell that the text is not nearly as clear as it could be (i.e., on the retina iPad). For example, > ... that's not a smooth, clean arrow, it's a blocky/fuzzy travesty that would look so much better with more pixels in it.Reply

Good to see another 30" offering out there for reasonable price. Id take a Crossover 30Q5 Pro any day over this for a lot less that cost of this as well, might be a bare bones 30" but least it has 5Ms response times making it far more suitable for gaming..Reply

How is the response time measured? Unless they're measured using the same method, it's really hard to compare one measurement to another due to all the factors possibly involved in the measurement.Reply

Personally this should be mainstream in the pc world by next year otherwise we are looking at antitrust situations again. Smartphones are already at unbelievable resolutions which is a complete waste considering the size of the panel, I really don't buy into the fact that a technology that is decades old like IPS monitors warrant a price tag comparable to industry standards like Adobe RBG, meaning the smart phone 1080p or higher screen that is touché technology sells for less than the overall unit being 800$ unlocked, or tablets and ultrabooks in the similar situation, that hover at the 1k mark yet we pay that for a non touché IPS 2560x1600. The PC monitor is simply a scam for resolutions and outdated tech once again they are stifling the industry in order to marginally larger profits over the long term of minimal upgrade similar to an Iphone disposable subscription plan. Reply

would make for a great programming monitor, once its half the cost :) one thing I would say though, is that many of these high bang/$ monitors tend to put most of the cost into the visible part (the screen) and skimp on components/circuitry that makes that screen work well for a long time. whether inferior caps or lights, on average their lifespan is definitely shorter than if you went with something 'better'.Reply